Peer Review Process

Our peer review processes are adopted in line with the AMRC guidance. Our process varies depending on the funding amount being reviewed and reflect the total of our research spend for the year.

researcher

This means projects that are less than 5% of our research spend undergo steps one, two, four, five and six of our peer review processes.

Projects, such as infrastructure grants and project grants, where the research spend is greater than 5% of the annual research spend will be complete all tiers of the peer review process including the review of proposals by independently appointed external reviewers.

 

Our Peer Review Process

 

Step 1 Charity Triage Check The research manager checks the applications meet with the charity’s submission criteria and all necessary documents have been submitted. A check that applications previously funded by researcher applicants have met the terms and conditions of the charity. At this stage, the Charity considers the principle investigator and co-applicants previously funded projects and their added value. 
Step 2 Nominated referee
reviews
All reviewers identified in the applications by the PI are approached to provide reviews of the submitted proposals.
Step 3 Independent review    The Project Advisory Group review the submitted proposals and recommend independent reviewers who are then approached to provide a scientific review of the submitted proposals.
Step 4 PAG review The PAG committee meet to review and vote on the scientific merit of the submitted proposals and make recommendations for funding.
Step 5 Board of Trustees review and approval of funding The projects recommended for funding are put forward to the Board of Trustees for approval of funding.
Step 6 Awards letters are sent Letters are sent to PIs and Co investigators detailing projects that are successful and unsuccessful along with feedback form the PAG review.